Nice work! But where exactly did I say that I was holding the pointer? Two 18 year-old girls were holding it as I stood a few feet away (and it was thier idea, not mine but anyway…).
So pretty much everything you just wrote save for duly noting the irony of your grown-man’s screen name is pretty much just a wasted post.
And does that string theory thingy you mentioned have anything to do with quantum mechanics and general relativity?
Never heard of it.
EDIT: Say what you want about me watching two hot 18 year-old girls use a Ouija Board (I was only two years older mind you)… That still leaves me alone in a dark room with two hot 18 y/o girls, one of which was my girlfriend and you wasting your time trying to make me look stupid for doing it.
[quote]If science is insufficient to answer these areas, to which I wholeheartedly agree, why do you insist on using scientific jargon? I think a more precise term for the God hypothesis would be the God postulate - more akin to philosophy than science - which is really where this discussion belongs anyway.
Scientific jargon? Are you really insinuating you are displeased with my semantics and thatâ??s what got you started?
Technically a theory as a word was in use long before and modern science. Even though I could show you how the theory of a creator fulfills even the modern scientific definition, it is most certainly a philosophical theory and deserves the title.
[/quote]
Okay, I’ll leave this on you to illustrate the validity of calling the God question a valid hypothesis. What experiment/thought experiment/computer modeling simulation/other(?) could be devised that could disprove the existence of God? If none exists, than the God question lies beyond the scope of scientific endeavor.
To answer your question, yes I was insinuating that it was your use of scientific jargon that got me started. There are WAY too many religious types (all faiths) that try to color their statements with scientific terminology in order to give the appearance that there is valid evidence in support of their religious convictions.
Oh, and look up Arthur S. Eddington. 1919 English Solar Eclipse Expidition.
Nice work! But where exactly did I say that I was holding the pointer? Two 18 year-old girls were holding it as I stood a few feet away (and it was thier idea, not mine but anyway…).
So pretty much everything you just wrote save for duly noting the irony of your grown-man’s screen name is pretty much just a wasted post.
And does that string theory thingy you mentioned have anything to do with quantum mechanics and general relativity?
Never heard of it.
[/quote]
My apologies good sir. Maybe this can help explain it then:
My point being is that you offer up an Ouija board as something with no scientific explanation behind it. Everything in this world can be explained scientifically, especially a child’s game.
Or it might just be easier for you to go on believing a piece of cardboard and a plastic toy really do have spirits channeled into them. I really can’t believe I have to sit and try to debunk an Ouija board to an adult.
[quote]LiveFromThe781 wrote:
people are too serious about religion
too serious about arguing where we came from at all for that matter.
while i understand everyone has curiosity towards it, at the end of the day it doesn’t really matter. im not saying you cant be interested but theres no need to fight over trivial stuff because everything still unfolds the way it does with or without you. it doesnt even matter if god exists or if the big bang happened. just live your life because when you die, the same thing will happen regardless of whether you think God, The Big Bang, or Giant Toads created the universe. [/quote]
Actually, I think that if Giant Toads created the universe they would be more sympathetic and fair to me in the afterlife than the Judeo-Christian Sky Daddy. I’ve already gotten in their good books by creating a username that honors their favorite creation. Plus, I jump everywhere
[quote]LiveFromThe781 wrote:
people are too serious about religion
too serious about arguing where we came from at all for that matter.
while i understand everyone has curiosity towards it, at the end of the day it doesn’t really matter. im not saying you cant be interested but theres no need to fight over trivial stuff because everything still unfolds the way it does with or without you. it doesnt even matter if god exists or if the big bang happened. just live your life because when you die, the same thing will happen regardless of whether you think God, The Big Bang, or Giant Toads created the universe. [/quote]
I tend to feel this way, and generally feel like as long as someone is tolerant of others beliefs, this is a great view point at least for me.
Some people can’t live like that though. Some people need religion in their lives, and I don’t really see that as a bad thing. The way I figure people should believe and follow what feels right to them. (Using it as an excuse to kill others is way out of line obviously.)
Then there are the people that are truly just having an intellectual conversation about it, like you said, it is cool to be interested in it.
I feel like the best part of the whole conversation is it shows us how one of the most significant parts about being alive isn’t absolute.
Maybe that is gay and sentimental, but it’s one of life’s little mysteries. And it can only be solved on an individual level.
Nice work! But where exactly did I say that I was holding the pointer? Two 18 year-old girls were holding it as I stood a few feet away (and it was thier idea, not mine but anyway…).
So pretty much everything you just wrote save for duly noting the irony of your grown-man’s screen name is pretty much just a wasted post.
And does that string theory thingy you mentioned have anything to do with quantum mechanics and general relativity?
Never heard of it.
My apologies good sir. Maybe this can help explain it then:
My point being is that you offer up an Ouija board as something with no scientific explanation behind it. Everything in this world can be explained scientifically, especially a child’s game.
Or it might just be easier for you to go on believing a piece of cardboard and a plastic toy really do have spirits channeled into them. I really can’t believe I have to sit and try to debunk an Ouija board to an adult.[/quote]
Isn’t that rich. Some of the most amazing feats of human reasoning and achievement go unnoticed or get scoffed openly, yet people find children’s toys and fantasy to be utterly engaging. As a species we’re not destined for much, I’m afraid.
If science is insufficient to answer these areas, to which I wholeheartedly agree, why do you insist on using scientific jargon? I think a more precise term for the God hypothesis would be the God postulate - more akin to philosophy than science - which is really where this discussion belongs anyway.
Scientific jargon? Are you really insinuating you are displeased with my semantics and that�¢??s what got you started?
Technically a theory as a word was in use long before and modern science. Even though I could show you how the theory of a creator fulfills even the modern scientific definition, it is most certainly a philosophical theory and deserves the title.
Okay, I’ll leave this on you to illustrate the validity of calling the God question a valid hypothesis. What experiment/thought experiment/computer modeling simulation/other(?) could be devised that could disprove the existence of God? If none exists, than the God question lies beyond the scope of scientific endeavor.
To answer your question, yes I was insinuating that it was your use of scientific jargon that got me started. There are WAY too many religious types (all faiths) that try to color their statements with scientific terminology in order to give the appearance that there is valid evidence in support of their religious convictions.
Oh, and look up Arthur S. Eddington. 1919 English Solar Eclipse Expidition.[/quote]
Way to address points. Theory is a philosophical word as I noted, science doesn’t own the word. They borrowed it. Yes it is beyond scientific endeavor. I’ve been saying that all along.
I however never brought up the word hypothesis, you did. It however is a philosophical word too and could be used appropriately in terms of spiritual beliefs. But once again if you choose to use the scientific definition, evolution, the big bang, est est fail to qualify. why don’t you mock them?
There are WAY too many scientific types (all branches) that try to color their statements with religious connotations in order to give the appearance that there is valid evidence to support their anti-religious convictions.
Or it might just be easier for you to go on believing a piece of cardboard and a plastic toy really do have spirits channeled into them. I really can’t believe I have to sit and try to debunk an Ouija board to an adult.[/quote]
Realize that you are the one making a huge deal about the board itself while I was the one all along trying to make a simple point about situations that have no scientific explaination and seem better defined as “supernatural”. If you don’t believe in supernatural occurances, say so and leave it at that. Or don’t, who cares?
I’ve never actually used a Ouija Board myself, just watched (previously mentioned) people use it (once mind you) but the names they came up with and the causes of death remain very hard to explain.
So, since we’re discussing it, two girls I met only weeks earlier spelling out the names of two deceased people that only I (of the three of us in the room) knew is beyond my ability to expain it, sorry. So instead of posting another link, why dont you just explain what I just described since you are apparently much more educated than I and for some unknown reason wish to make me and everyone else here realize it.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Way to address points. Theory is a philosophical word as I noted, science doesn’t own the word. They borrowed it. Yes it is beyond scientific endeavor. I’ve been saying that all along.
[/quote]
Okay, to address previous point you’ve made that I’ve glossed over…
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
What part of relativity was tested while Einstein was alive?
[/quote]
English solar eclipse expidition. 1919.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
There are countless theories that are not currently testable. String theory and other unification theories. Evolution. Things like the big bang. Not testable. Now there are observational studies, but exactly 0 tests for any of these things. No testability, no scientific method. However, as I was stating before I consider existence observational evidence of a higher power.
[/quote]
First point - not currently testable does not mean not testable. And how is evolution not testable? It’s being tested in lab experiments all the time. Not to mention 1000s of fossils that support the theory. And genetic evidence. You’re not well informed if you think that evolution is not/has not/will not be tested.
Second point - existence is not evidence of a higher power anymore than bridges are evidence of trolls. Or quarters under my pillow evidence of the tooth fairy.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I just donâ??t buy the laws of the universe statement. Scientific predestination is scientifically impossible which is what is generally insinuated by calling them laws.
[/quote]
What happens when you turn on the light switch at your house? Does everything turn to green jelly? Or does the light come on? How about if you jump off a tall building? Do you float into space? Do you disappear altogether? I think we can all agree that there are fundamental physical laws that allow us to reasonably predict what will happen in these instances.
As for Genesis and the big bang theory not being mutually exclusive, I must be referring to a different Genesis story than you are. I didn’t know there was another Genesis that outlined the inital stages of the expansion of the universe and subsequent cooling and formation of elements and so forth. Forgive my ignorance - I thought we were comparing the seven days let there be light account. Ditto for the Creationism vs. Evolution. Geesh!
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I however never brought up the word hypothesis, you did.
[/quote]
hmmm…
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
You exist.
Come up with a better hypothesis for it’s explanation.
[/quote]
I beleive this is where I entered the discussion.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
It however is a philosophical word too and could be used appropriately in terms of spiritual beliefs. But once again if you choose to use the scientific definition, evolution, the big bang, est est fail to qualify. why don’t you mock them?
[/quote]
What are these est est you refer to? Evolution I’ve dealt with. Evidence of the Big Bang is observable. I don’t mock them because they are based on factual evidence and reasoning. Your theory is not.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
There are WAY too many scientific types (all branches) that try to color their statements with religious connotations in order to give the appearance that there is valid evidence to support their anti-religious convictions.[/quote]
What religious connotation? Now you’re just making stuff up. Anti-religious? Most definitely.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
LiveFromThe781 wrote:
people are too serious about religion
too serious about arguing where we came from at all for that matter.
while i understand everyone has curiosity towards it, at the end of the day it doesn’t really matter. im not saying you cant be interested but theres no need to fight over trivial stuff because everything still unfolds the way it does with or without you. it doesnt even matter if god exists or if the big bang happened. just live your life because when you die, the same thing will happen regardless of whether you think God, The Big Bang, or Giant Toads created the universe.
I tend to feel this way, and generally feel like as long as someone is tolerant of others beliefs, this is a great view point at least for me.
Some people can’t live like that though. Some people need religion in their lives, and I don’t really see that as a bad thing. The way I figure people should believe and follow what feels right to them. (Using it as an excuse to kill others is way out of line obviously.)
Then there are the people that are truly just having an intellectual conversation about it, like you said, it is cool to be interested in it.
I feel like the best part of the whole conversation is it shows us how one of the most significant parts about being alive isn’t absolute.
Maybe that is gay and sentimental, but it’s one of life’s little mysteries. And it can only be solved on an individual level.[/quote]
i don’t really look at the bible as anything more than a very old book of morals.
the whole concept is just to show how people should treat each other, although we’ve come to upgrade/evolve our values since then. but a lot of the values are pretty consistent.
the 10 commandments for example, all pretty basic stuff, dont steal/kill/cheat on your wife/disrespect your parents. i can dig that.
but if you think that shit was really spoken down from god to some random guy, youre a fucking nut.
they basically mapped out how heat would have disapated or some shit i forget the details i saw it on one of those The Universe shows on Discov channel
i dont have a problem with the studying of the bible but i think you fail to distinguish between the bible being a book of morals instead of a book of absolute facts of creation and events.
you really believe that god, as a figure, destroyed an entire civilization just because he was mad at them? you think let alone you believe an omnipotent being responsible for the grand design of the universe and reality itself would even feel emotion? let alone jealousy? are you serious?
the problem with these religious extremists is that they are flat out brainwashed. a lot of them are smart people but that doesnt escape you from being brainwashed and a brainwashed person is never going to admit to it, regardless of their logic because well…thats how brain washing works.
DoubleDeuce you’re a design engineer, im not sure what that is exactly but it sounds like your probably do something with computer software…not something any slouch can just do. i’m sure you’re a bright and good natured guy. my guess is that being you’re from Tennessee you’ve grown up with religion your whole life and probably a baptist, a sect of Christianity well known for it’s preaching and deep religious commitments.
you may or may not be aware of this, but people can be trained to think all kinds of ways. you’ve been taught to think the way you do, to the point where when it comes to religion it isn’t “thought” at all, its reciting what you’ve been told.
you don’t believe me though, right? ok.
the military widely announces that it’s aim to break people down and build them back up, make them function how they want.
there are also NUMEROUS cults who do the same, with lethal effects.
example, Jim Jones cult leader who got his group from the Mid West to commit the largest mass suicide ever. except, no one ever signs up to commit mass suicide, they sign up looking for love, protection, shelter, etc. slowly Jim Jones was able to get these people do anything he wanted including massive orgies and moving to Guyana, South America where over 900 people killed themselves. Do you think any single one of these people wanted to kill themselves? no, they were brainwashed. you were brainwashed and honestly i don’t even expect you to comprehend any of this because you probably cant even rationalize it - i’m just explaining to everyone else why it’s impossible to reason with fanatics.
[quote]LiveFromThe781 wrote:
the 10 commandments for example, all pretty basic stuff, dont steal/kill/cheat on your wife/disrespect your parents. i can dig that.[/quote]
[quote]LiveFromThe781 wrote:
people are too serious about religion
too serious about arguing where we came from at all for that matter.
while i understand everyone has curiosity towards it, at the end of the day it doesn’t really matter. im not saying you cant be interested but theres no need to fight over trivial stuff because everything still unfolds the way it does with or without you. it doesnt even matter if god exists or if the big bang happened. just live your life because when you die, the same thing will happen regardless of whether you think God, The Big Bang, or Giant Toads created the universe. [/quote]
It was actually the Flying Spaghetti Monster after chugging too much beer from the Beer Volcano (you know, the one to the east of the stripper factory in heaven). They don’t call it unintelligent design for nothing.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
LiveFromThe781 wrote:
the 10 commandments for example, all pretty basic stuff, dont steal/kill/cheat on your wife/disrespect your parents. i can dig that.
example, Jim Jones cult leader who got his group from the Mid West to commit the largest mass suicide ever. except, no one ever signs up to commit mass suicide, they sign up looking for love, protection, shelter, etc. slowly Jim Jones was able to get these people do anything he wanted including massive orgies and moving to Guyana, South America where over 900 people killed themselves. Do you think any single one of these people wanted to kill themselves? no, they were brainwashed. you were brainwashed and honestly i don’t even expect you to comprehend any of this because you probably cant even rationalize it - i’m just explaining to everyone else why it’s impossible to reason with fanatics.
[/quote]
It is extremely difficult to argue with extremists, but education and the resulting opportunity created by education seem to be fairly good at preventing it. I watched a long report about it on CNN, and apparently the Taliban target poor uneducated areas in an effort to get more young insurgents. The fact that these kids have no future and they don’t know any better causes them to jump at the chance. Most of them have never even heard of a newspaper and don’t know what is really going on, they only know whatever warped version the extremists tell them, kinda like a fucked up version of the game telephone, since the fundamentalists control all the information. In areas where U.S. troops have built schools the Taliban have found it nearly impossible to recruit new soldiers. It was mentioned that since more girls are learning in afghanistan they in turn are educating their mothers, which causes them to deny their sons request for permission to go on Jihad. I think that whole situation in the middle east just shows that when you don’t have the ability or the will to search for the truth on your own then you can easily be manipulated.
Alot of people here and the rest of the world are the same way, for whatever reason, they don’t think for themselves and just kind of accept what is told to them, it’s like their own logic won’t even touch it because its been ingrained so early on, either that or they cling to it desperately because it fills the void. It’s hard for me to comprehend why somewhere along the line people don’t go, “wait…that doesn’t make any fucking sense” but some people are just like that.
[quote]Vegita wrote:
Someone needs to teach that guy how to ground n pound, he friggin let her up and she escaped!
V[/quote]
I think it was a wise idea to let her stand up again. His striking seems superior and I bet she has a nasty rubber guard. Besides, who could have expected her to pull a Kalib Starnes.
that’s why you don’t take the book word for word - besides how many times does a story get altered just between when it happens and when you hear it? quick example a couple weeks ago the cops shot someone here. the story as it actually happened was… cops pull over a stolen car driver backs into one cop and drags another, a cop opens fire and kills the driver and the other suspect was on the run. do you know what i heard happened? that there was a shootout between some kids and the cops and that three cops got killed. people exaggerate the fuck out of everything, everyone adds something to a story when they tell it.
anyway, there are other stories in the bible about strength, discipline, etc
and theres absolutely nothing wrong with looking at the bible from that perspective. things just get dangerous when you start looking at it word for word as divine truth.
[quote]LiveFromThe781 wrote:
that’s why you don’t take the book word for word - besides how many times does a story get altered just between when it happens and when you hear it? quick example a couple weeks ago the cops shot someone here. the story as it actually happened was… cops pull over a stolen car driver backs into one cop and drags another, a cop opens fire and kills the driver and the other suspect was on the run. do you know what i heard happened? that there was a shootout between some kids and the cops and that three cops got killed. people exaggerate the fuck out of everything, everyone adds something to a story when they tell it.
anyway, there are other stories in the bible about strength, discipline, etc
and theres absolutely nothing wrong with looking at the bible from that perspective. things just get dangerous when you start looking at it word for word as divine truth. [/quote]
Which means we are able to cherry pick what we find moral. The book isn’t needed.
What basis would you use to say “hey I probably shouldn’t stone this guy to death”?
